Re: A database theory resource - ideas

JOG wrote:

> I found one of the most interesting parts in a gargantuan recent
> thread was the listing of priorities for reaching a certain audience
> and determining what one wants to get across (Thanks to bob for that.
> You may object to his style but I've found there can be lot of value
> in his posts).
>
> Anyhow I have discovered a lot over the last year since my arrival,
> and as such I often feel the urge to contribute back to general
> knowledge in the field. So with the loss of sites such as dbdebunk and
> the general lack of a simple central resource for database theory I am
> intending to put together a form of FAQ site. Hopefully this will be
> useful to reducing retro-activity in the field, as well as being a
> useful educational resource. Additionally any audience is self-
> selecting and this can only ease a lot of the frustrations I have in
> trying to convince those in entrenched positions of advancements over
> the last few decades. Perhaps it may even provide a reference link for
> common arguments that continually arise. Who knows.
>
> Anyhow I am initially aiming to concisely cover the following topics:
>
> * The vital nature of separating conceptual/logical/physical layers in
> data modelling
> * Working in terms of Propositions and not Objects
> * The argument against OID's (and hence for the information principle)
> * Why Navigation was replaced by Declaration
> * That Data models involve not just structure, but also manipulation
> and integrity.
> * Why hypertext models are insufficient (due to irreducible tuples)
> (web 3.0 ... good grief)
> * What semistructured data is (or rather is not).
>
> I am planning to omit well covered ground such as eliminating
> redundancy and anomalies through normalization, simply referring to
> external links. Obviously all of the above has been covered somewhere
> in the literature, so the aim is rather to produce a central, concise
> and hence accessible resource as opposed to resorting to a text-book/
> academic paper format.
>
> The main purpose is to provide a purely educational resource, with as
> little impartiality as I can muster, constraining to established
> theory and facts, or clear logical arguments.
>
> So my question to cdt is to ask what /you/ believe the priorities for
> such a resource would be?
> - which pivotal questions are most misunderstood?
> - where does most ignorance lie in our field?
> - are there are any crucial topics that you believe it would be useful
> to address that I have not listed.
>
> Any input is gratefully received.
>
> Regards, Jim.

Jim,

How goes the project? Received on Mon Apr 16 2007 - 19:30:02 CEST